Marines in video "could be party to a war crime"

[ProSense]

4 Marines in video ID'd; Probe ongoing

By David Martin

(CBS News) Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described video that apparently shows U.S. Marines urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters in Afghanistan as "deplorable" on Thursday.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports all four Marines in the video have now been identified, and could face charges after the military completes its investigation into the incident.

<...>

According to Secretary of State Clinton, they all could be party to a war crime.

"Anyone, anyone found to have participated or know about it, having engaged in such conduct, must be held fully accountable," Clinton said Thursday.

- more -

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57358476/4-marines-in-video-idd-could-face-charges/

[arcane1]

1. Which war crime? The invasion of Afghanistan?

[Enrique]

2. did she use the term "war crime"?

it's not clear from the story.

[think]

3. I watched the video and the narrator paraphrased her words that she was speaking to that effect

But I did not hear Secretary of State Clinton use the words "war crimes".

[ProSense]

7. It was

a paraphrase, which is likely why it isn't in quotes.

<...>

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jill, first I want to express my total dismay at the story concerning our Marines, who I have the highest respect and admiration for. But I share completely the views expressed by Secretary Panetta earlier today. I join him in condemning the deplorable behavior that is reflected in this video. It is absolutely inconsistent with American values, with the standards of behavior that we expect from our military personnel and the vast, vast military personnel, particularly our Marines, hold themselves to. So I know Secretary Panetta has ordered a complete investigation of this incident. Anyone – anyone – found to have participated or known about it, having engaged in such conduct, must be held fully accountable.

-more -

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/01/177969.htm

[mike_c]

4. of course they're party to a war crime...

...as are all the others who participated in the wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan. And those who instigated them, approved them, and commanded them.

[Erose999]

6. Thats kind of broad-brush. I mean the individual soldiers who serve during the wars are just doing

their jobs. Its the administration and the intelligentsia that are the problem. These pissing soldiers and the Abu Gharib idiots are not representative of all of our servicepeople.

[mike_c]

9. yeah, after all, they were just following orders....

You need to read the Nuremburg decisions. Following orders is no defense against war crimes. None at ALL.

[Neue Regel]

11. By your standards, you are also a war criminal

Unless you've stood on your principles and refused to pay any federal taxes whatsoever since March 2003. Or are you being a good Little Eichmann and funding war crimes with your tax remittances?

Following tax law is no defense against funding wars of aggression. None at ALL.

[mike_c]

12. I agree....

That's also one of the lessons of Nuremburg-- the nation that embraces a war of aggression shares in its criminality. I am deeply ashamed of what the U.S. has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as much of the rest of our foreign policy.

That's the real problem with our politics, I think-- neither party gives us alternatives that would prevent those crimes, so we have little choice but to accept responsibility for them. I hate being forced into that position.

[Erose999]

5. Its a little late in the game to start prosecuting war crimes innit? I mean I hope these guys pay

for what they did, but what I'd really like to see is prosecution of the administration that sent them there under false pretenses.

[cadaverdog]

8. Let me get this straight:

Pissing on a corpse is a war crime, but torture by waterboarding is OK? Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[ProSense]

10. Who

"torture by waterboarding is OK?"

...said that?

[LanternWaste]

13. I don't think that the crimes of one denies the crimes of the other.

I don't think that the crimes of one denies the crimes of the other. But I would gladly entertain any explanation of how it is indeed so, and would thank you for clearing *that* up...